MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2788966819 · doi:10.20381/ruor-18634

Advanced aerobic digestion to optimize pathogen reduction: Staged pre-treatment in aerobic digestion

2006· dissertation· en· W2788966819 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. Seaman

Bibliographic record

VenueuO Research (University of Ottawa) · 2006
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigestion (alchemy)Aerobic digestionReduction (mathematics)Aerobic bacteriaChemistryMicrobiologyBiologyAnaerobic digestionBacteriaChromatographyMathematicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land application of biosolids is a desirable solution for smaller communities that utilize aerobic digestion. However, traditional aerobic digestion produces Class B biosolids at best which raises public concern regarding the fate of pathogens following land application. The main goal of this work was to determine a plan to help an aerobic digestion WWTP achieve improved pathogen destruction. An approach of studying the effect of a pre-treatment step prior to digestion was developed following site visits to eight aerobic digestion facilities in Ontario. The experimental phases of this work evaluated the effect of aeration rate, temperature and retention time on pathogen reduction in 12 setups. The four best conditions were carried out with digestion to evaluate the ultimate impact of pre-treatment on digestion. The results indicated that a micro-aerobic, highly reducing environment produces adverse conditions within the pre-treatment column which also impact subsequent digestion and resulted in decreased pathogens.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueuO Research (University of Ottawa)→Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→